Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Conflicts of Interest
3. Reviewer Characteristics
4. Invitation to Reviewers
5. Preparation of the Review Report
6. Evaluation Criteria
7. General Recommendations
8. Reviewer Benefits
9. Volunteer Reviewers

 

1. Introduction

The Revista de Ciencias Agrarias acknowledges the valuable time and effort of its reviewers and expresses sincere gratitude for their contributions and expertise in maintaining the journal’s high standards. Reviewers may, in some cases, be invited to evaluate revised versions of manuscripts they initially reviewed. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and clear feedback, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of the research while maintaining confidentiality and avoiding conflicts of interest. The Journal of Agricultural Sciences is committed to upholding the integrity of the peer review process and expects all reviewers to comply with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. These guidelines include respecting the confidentiality of the peer review process; refraining from using information obtained during review for personal or third-party benefit, or to harm or discredit others; and not disclosing any details of a manuscript or related communications, during or after the review process. This obligation of confidentiality extends to the review and all associated correspondence, meaning that reviewers must not, under any circumstances, contact the authors directly at any stage of the peer review process. If a reviewer makes significant contributions to the article’s results, they must submit a detailed letter to the journal describing the exceptional circumstances for consideration. Failure to comply with this policy will result in rejection of the manuscript.

2. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should carefully assess whether they have any conflicts of interest that could compromise the impartiality of their review. The invitation to review must be declined if any of the following situations apply:

• Collaboration with any of the authors within the past three years, including, but not limited to, current publications or submissions.
• Sharing the same institutional affiliation as any of the authors, including cases involving multiple affiliations.
• A close personal relationship (e.g., spouse or relative) or a professional connection (e.g., past or present doctoral student, postdoctoral researcher, or supervisor) with any of the authors.
• A personal rivalry or animosity toward any of the authors.
• Financial interests related to or potentially affected by the manuscript or its subject matter.
• Any other circumstance that may prevent an objective evaluation.

Failure to disclose a conflict of interest may result in an investigation and could lead to sanctions by the journal. If a reviewer believes they can remain objective despite a potential conflict, they must inform the Editor-in-Chief immediately upon receiving the invitation to review. Reviewers must also remain impartial and must not be influenced by factors such as the authors’ nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or other personal characteristics, nor by the origin of the manuscript or commercial considerations. Please note that being asked to review a manuscript previously reviewed for another journal is not considered a conflict of interest. Each reviewer is expected to conduct their evaluation in a professional, transparent, and ethical manner, following the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-v2_0.pdf). Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest and to contact the journal if they are uncertain whether a particular situation constitutes a conflict.

3. Reviewer Characteristics

The role of the reviewer is vital and carries a significant responsibility in ensuring the integrity of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to meet the following criteria:

• Have no conflicts of interest with any of the authors.
• Hold a doctoral or postdoctoral degree.
• Possess relevant experience and a proven publication record in the field of the submitted article (as documented in Scopus or Web of Science).
• Be academics or researchers with expertise in the subject area of the submitted article.
• Have publications in the last three years in the field of study.
• Maintain an official and recognized academic affiliation. The Revista de Ciencias Agrícolas is committed to rigorous peer review to ensure a thorough evaluation of each manuscript.
• Have the necessary experience to assess the scientific quality of the manuscript.
• Provide a thorough and timely review report and remain responsive throughout the peer review process.
• Uphold the highest standards of professionalism and ethical conduct.

4. Invitation to Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Agricultural Sciences are reviewed by at least two experts, who may be volunteer reviewers, members of the Editorial Board, members of the Scientific Committee, or reviewers suggested by the Editor-in-Chief or the authors during the preliminary review. Reviewers are asked to assess the quality of the manuscript and to recommend to the Editor-in-Chief whether the manuscript should be rejected, requires major revisions, requires minor revisions, or be accepted as submitted. We therefore ask invited reviewers to accept or decline the invitation as soon as possible (based on the title and abstract of the manuscript), suggest alternative reviewers if they must decline, or request an extension of the deadline promptly if additional time is required to submit the full report.

5. Preparation of the Review Report

The Revista de Ciencias Agrícolas uses a double-blind peer review system. Until the article is published, reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, including the abstract. Reviewers must also take care not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in reports submitted in Portable Document Format (.pdf). Reviewers are asked to express their recommendations in a report. Manuscripts will be provided in .pdf format, with all subsections included and pages and lines numbered continuously. In their reports, reviewers should provide general comments on the manuscript as a whole or on each subsection, and, where appropriate, detailed comments referencing specific page(s) or line(s) of the manuscript. The final decision of the Editor-in-Chief is based on the strength of the arguments presented by the authors and all reviewers and may not always align with every recommendation. When making a recommendation, reviewers should consider the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s aims and scope. Feedback should focus on the research and scientific content rather than formatting issues, which will be addressed by the production editor. The review report must be written in English. Below are general guidelines for preparing your review report:

• Read the full article, including any supplementary material, and review the figures, tables, data, and methods.
• Critically analyze the manuscript, including specific sections and key concepts presented.
• Ensure your comments are detailed so that authors can clearly understand and address the points raised.
• Avoid recommending references to other works unless necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers should maintain a neutral tone and provide constructive criticism to help authors improve their work. Derogatory comments will not be tolerated. Reviewers are solely responsible for the content of their reports and must ensure confidentiality, data privacy, and ownership. The report must be submitted to the journal using the form (RCA Reviewer evaluation form) or by inserting comments directly into the manuscript (previously submitted as a .pdf).

6. Evaluation Criteria

The Revista de Ciencias Agrícolas emphasizes the importance of evaluating submitted manuscripts based on their scope and relevance to the journal, rather than in comparison to previously published works. Reviewers are encouraged to assess the reported findings and their impact on the journal’s scope and interest to the scientific community:

• The hypothesis must be tested, and the conclusions should be supported by appropriate methods, high-quality data, and robust analysis.
• The methods, data, and analyses must be described in sufficient detail to allow reproducibility by the scientific community.
• Comment on any technical inconsistencies or missing information, such as insufficient experimental or theoretical details, use of non-standardized methods or analyses, or missing error bars in data graphs.
• Note any ethical concerns regarding the planning or execution of the research.
• Review for misconduct during writing or submission, including plagiarism, simultaneous submission, dual or fragmented publication, image or data manipulation, or authorship issues.
• Assess whether the authors exhibit experimental bias or use defamatory language that could harm others or their reputation.
• Evaluate the clarity of the manuscript, ensuring that the reported findings are presented clearly and unambiguously.
• The writing style should be appropriate for a scientific publication; the manuscript’s structure should be logical, and the language must be grammatically and linguistically correct.
• Verify that visualization elements—figures, diagrams, and tables—are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled with their respective legends.
• When applicable, ensure that any supplementary information is adequate, self-contained, and does not require additional editing.

7. General Recommendations

A good recommendation provides a balanced critique of the manuscript's positive and negative aspects; specific comments are more useful than general ones. Reviewers should provide an overall recommendation for the manuscript, as follows:

• Rejected: The manuscript has serious deficiencies, does not provide any original scientific contribution, and may be rejected without being offered resubmission to the journal.
• Major Revisions: Acceptance of the manuscript depends on revisions. Authors should provide a detailed response or rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be addressed. Typically, a maximum of two rounds of major revisions is allowed per manuscript. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised manuscript within at least two weeks, and the revised version will then be returned to the reviewer for additional comments.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript may be accepted after revision, based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are generally given at least two weeks to make minor revisions.
• Accepted in present form: The manuscript may be accepted without further modifications.

Please note that your recommendation is only visible to the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, not to the authors. Decisions regarding revision, acceptance, or rejection must always be clearly justified. Manuscripts may change their recommendation over time (e.g., from major revisions to minor revisions) until final acceptance, based on the reviewers’ evaluations.

8. Reviewer Benefits

We recognize that reviewing a manuscript is often an invisible and unrewarding task, despite being crucial to the success of our journal. We strive to acknowledge the efforts of all our reviewers through a personalized reviewer certificate. Outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the journal’s Scientific or Editorial Committee, subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief.

9. Volunteers Reviewers

The Revista de Ciencias Agrícolas is continually seeking volunteers to review manuscripts. Members of the Scientific or Editorial Board, as well as members of the international